36 1 4 Student Autonomy

8/2/2019 36 1 4 Student Autonomy

1/5

Tow ards s tudent au tonomy int he learn ing of Engl ish as asecond language atunivers i ty leve lC. M. Armanet and K. Obese-jectyA pedagogical experiment carried out since 1977 has led us to developan original learning strategy which is flexible and easy to adapt. Itplaces the emphasis on the student and his specific needs and motiva-tions, and is designed to free him from the traditional pedagogicallimitations.It is both self-initiated and group-initiated, with support provided bythe teaching staff. In this system, individual work alternates with groupwork, which focuses on the production of a collective project or taskcorresponding to the set of objectives defined by the members of thegroup. This enables students to master the social functions of language.

Thus learning becomes an active and creative process of languageacquisition, where the dynamics of interaction induce natural speechreflexes and acts within authentic communicative situations.In common with all courses taught at the University of Compigne,language courses are organized on a semester based credit-system (U.V.).Three languages are offered: English, German, and Spanish. As far asEnglish is concerned, all students leaving the university are required to passa minimum level test (N.P.M. Test) in order to obtain their engineeringdegree. This test has been designed at a level comparable with thethreshold level proposed by the Council of Europe. (See Van Ek, 1975.)

LG 02 is one of four English courses at an intermediate level between theN.P.M. and the most advanced U.V. Students doing LG 02 have generallyalready studied English for eight to ten years, and come from all depart-ments of the University with different needs, objectives, and levels.

When we took over responsibility for the course for second-year univer-sity students, we were faced with various difficulties arising from the imme-diate history of this subject in such a recently-established institution.Though closely interlinked in their effects, the causes of the difficultiesencountered could be classified in the following way: first and foremost,the type of learner was at the time not very clearly defined, and thestudents motivations and precise needs had never been analysed; secondly,the pedagogy used was a mere adaptation of traditional secondary schoolmethodology, without any apparent justification, and without any deep-rooted attempt to adapt it to the new context. The result was growingabsenteeism and a lack of interest in the course. It was thus necessary toeffect profound changes in the teaching of LG 02, and this led to a researchproject which was reported in the thesis of one of the authors and in arecent article (Armanet, 1980). In this article, a brief account is given of thedifferent actions undertaken.ELT Journal Volume 36/1 October 1981

articles welcome


2/5

.Needs analysis Inrder to steer the right course, several questionnaires, enquiries,meetings, and interviews w&e organized with the different parties involved

in the English- teaching process at the University of Technology,Compigne (U.T.C.). Examples of such contacts are given below.1 Individual interviews were held with the President of the University, the

Director of Pedagogy and Academic Affairs, the President of theAcademic Board, and the person in charge of industrial training andattachment courses. Members of the teaching staff and students were alsointerviewed.

2 Meetings were arranged with the Pedagogical Council of the U.T.C.,with the personnel managers of local industries and branches of multi-national firms, with lecturers or professors, and with old and newstudents from the course.

3 At the end of each semester, students were asked to fill out an anony-mous questionnaire containing 34 questions about their reactions to thecourse.

It was thus possible to obtain statistical data (by analysis of the question-naire using a computer, and by histograms of the themes arising duringmeetings and interviews) on which could be based a more comprehensiveand quantitative definition of the target group with respect to its real needs,motivations, and inhibitions. On the other hand, it was also possible totake into account the requirements of the University and of futureemployers. It is perhaps worth emphasizing the advantage of such a systemof data collection and analysis, which is flexible, easily modified, andadaptable to different group situations.

An analysis of the data collected showed that a large proportion ofstudents doing LG 02 (88%-96%) had improvement of their oral skills andcomprehension as their principal objective. However, a minority (lO%-20%) also wanted to maintain the level of written expression and com-prehension acquired before starting the course. It was also clear that alarge majority of the students (79~86%) preferred to be semi-autonomousin class. The reservations of some students about such an approach dis-appeared rapidly during the semester, as wiI1 be explained further on. Inany case, the pedagogical structure proposed was sufficiently flexible toaccommodate those students not yet completely liberated from theirsecondary school attitudes, and who desired (at least for a time) to follow amore traditional learning method.

Finally, the preliminary enquiries showed that the students-futurescientists and engineers-would, for the most part, stay in France, andwould therefore use their second language in France and during shortperiods outside France on trips, conferences, etc. On the other hand, acertain number - f ewer than lO% - would become expatriates in anEnglish-speaking country for more than one year. Thus, while the studentsclearly needed to have a certain competence in the technical English oftheir special subjects, their major need was related to their problems in oralEnglish expression and communication in non-professional situations.

The pedagogical The work and pedagogical experiments of B. Schwartz have shown thatapproach: knowledge which does not include any know-how is rarely retainedAutonomy (Schwartz, 1964). Our students were in a position to determine the skills

that they would like to acquire. Also, they were adult enough to know whatskills would be required of them after leaving university (even if thesedesirable skills were difficult to acquire or of little interest to them in theStudent autonomy at university level 25

articles welcome


3/5

short term). For these reasons it was decided to base the course on thelearner himself, with the introduction of a pedagogy based on specificobjectives and a shift away from the traditional dominance of the teacher toa situation in which the teacher acted as the supervisor of self-directedlearning.

Such a new system implies profound changes in the attitudes and habitsof both teachers and students. The former have to discard their traditionalrole as the authority from whom all knowledge flows and develop insteadan aptitude for empathy, and the ability to act as listeners and catalysts.The latter must no longer seek refuge in their passive role in the old no-risk, maternal system but, on the contrary, must take charge of their owntraining. In other words, they are expected to become capable of defining:1 their needs in terms of new skills to be acquired and of their short-term

and long-term objectives ;2 the conditions, the techniques, and materials to be used during their

training ;3 the system of evaluation of their performance during the course.The success of such a system obviously depends on the readiness of all con-cerned to play the game. This implies a tacit contract at the beginning ofthe course, which may be revised later on.

Since it is necessary to have more than one participant in com-munication, and also because of the number of students per class (12 to15), it was decided to take advantage of the group effect on the creativityand motivation of group members, and to demand specific tasks andprojects of the groups that were formed in each class. Each student wasrequired to join a group of three to five people, freely constituted accord-ing to personal affinities and objectives. Each group was required topresent a project which would demonstrate the competence of members ofthe group in the language skills they had opted to develop at the begin-ning of the course. The type of activity and details of the project were left tothe groups. These included making short videotapes or 16mm films,producing a sequence of slides with a commentary, holding debates, doingpress-reviews (for those who wanted to develop their written skills),presenting dramatic sketches, interviews, radio-games, etc.

Each student was thus engaged throughout the semester in work directlyrelated to the specific linguistic and communicative objectives chosen.Examples of language objectives were:1. Information Bulletin on the University Resear ch CentreGeneral objectives:to find out more about the research activities at their university, and toproduce a document to hand out during trips abroad.Communicative objectives:to be able to describe their university environment; to be able to describearchitectural spaces ; to be able to describe scientific experiments; toacquire a better pronunciation (intonation, rhythm, stress, etc.).(Note: as this was a rather important project, former LG 02 students tookcharge of the technical aspects.)2. Mak ing a FilmThis project was concerned with a film presenting the Research Centre tovisitors to the University. A commentary in English on the activities of thedifferent departments was made after consultation and interviews withArmanet and Obese-jecty

articles welcome


4/5

anglophones and French research staff, the search for specializedvocabulary, expressions, and style took some of the students to England.The final product has been shown to members of the university staff and isexpected to be shown to foreign visitors in France or travelling members ofthe staff abroad.

A video tape partly based on the development of a Hollywood pro-duction formed another aspect of this project.Objectives:a better mastery of interpersonal communication, and of interactivediscourse.

The production shows scenes of a film in the making. The basic frame-work was prepared in advance by the students. The dialogue wasimprovised on stage. Recording the sequences on videotape enabled thestudents to appraise their performance and improve upon it (alone, orsometimes with the help of a native speaker). The final production hasbeen placed in the students video library to be shown to other students orto interested members of the public (teachers of English, people interestedin expression techniques, etc.).

The criteria for evaluating the video were as follows :a. comprehension and clarityb. fluency and easec. adaptation to unforeseen elements occurring in spontaneous speechd. relevance of speaker interventions, etc.In some cases, more specific individual criteria were added.

The strategy The successful functioning of the system depends on the availability of thenecessary materials and technical aids. At the same time, the students mustbe able to count on the help of the teacher and on the language skills of theanglophone teaching assistants.

With respect to material support, an expanding audio- and video-tapelibrary has been built up over the past few years. Students borrow cassettesor video cassettes for their personal use, either for creative work, or forinformation. Written support material is also available and includes maga-zines of English or American origin, games, grammar and vocabularycards, and language function cards (e.g. refusing an offer, introducingpeople, etc.). In addition, there are two language laboratories, differentlyequipped, but both available on a self-service basis.

As far as pedagogical support is concerned, each student has regularindividual interviews with the teacher, during which an assessment is madeof his or her performance, and the training strategy modified if necessary.In addition, individual or group tutorials (two or three participants) areheld twice a month with anglophones of different origins, thus exposingthe students to different accents and speech rhythms. The topics of thesetutorials are very varied, and are chosen by the students.

We have found that after a preliminary familiarization period of severalweeks, the student groups attain an intensive rhythm of work in which thehelp of the teacher is needed less and less. In fact, a large measure ofdiagnosis, evaluation, and self-correction is made possible by the use ofvideo equipment, and the presence of the teacher becomes necessary onlyat critical points to start off a new activity, to explain certain tricky languagepoints, etc.

It must be noted that the total amount of work done by the students ismuch greater than would be the case in a traditional language course. TheStudent autonomy at university level 27

articles welcome


5/5

36 1 4 Student Autonomy

Documents

Transcript of 36 1 4 Student Autonomy